The impact of inconsistent corporate CSR information and product CSR information on consumer evaluations

(1)

Isabel Meijaard

The Impact of Inconsistent Corporate CSR Information and Product

CSR Information on Consumer Evaluations

M.D.I. Meijaard / 10547827 Master Thesis Marketing, V1

MSc Business Studies / Marketing Track University of Amsterdam

1st_{Reader: Ms. M Vock}

2nd_{Reader: Dr. A. Zerres}

Date: 08.08.2014 Words: 17567

(2)

Abstract

Even though Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is considered to be an economic imperative in today’s business environment (e.g. Connolly and Shaw, 2006; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2011), corporations need to start paying particular attention to the CSR information that they convey on different brand levels within the organization. Nowadays, large multinational corporations are increasingly criticized for conveying conflicting information about the social responsibility of the corporation and its underlying product brands. Although prior research has studied the impact of inconsistent CSR statements and behavioral performance on the consumer’s evaluation of the organization, it remains unclear how consumers perceive and react to inconsistent product-level and corporate-level CSR information and how consumers’ proneness to confusion might influence the impact of inconsistent CSR information on consumer evaluations. Taking first steps towards closing this gap, this study investigates the impact of Inconsistent CSR Information on consumer evaluations of the product and the corporation and examines the potential mediating effect of CSR Beliefs. Furthermore, this study introduces the concept of consumer confusion proneness as a potential moderator of the relationship between inconsistent CSR and consumer evaluations. Findings of this study revealed that Inconsistent CSR Information negatively affects consumers’ Corporate CSR Beliefs and their attitudes towards the Corporation. Consumers’ Product CSR Beliefs and attitudes towards the Product brand were not significantly affected by CSR inconsistencies. Furthermore, findings showed that CSR Beliefs partially mediate the relationship between CSR inconsistencies and corporate evaluations, however do not play a role in the relationship between CSR inconsistencies and Product evaluations. Findings did not support the moderating effect of Consumer Confusion Proneness.

(3)

Large Multinational Corporations have increasingly adopted the Corporate Branding Trend by visibly connecting their individual product brands to the all-encompassing Corporate Brand. In previous years, the corporate brand behind the product was virtually invisible as it was rarely mentioned in product advertisements and was treated as a standalone silo, housing a plethora of individual product brands, however, times have changed. Nowadays, more and more product advertisements appear to feature references to the Corporation behind the product brand. This current marketing trend is also referred to as Brand Unification and involves a shift in marketing communications from a product-brand focus, to a strong, distinct focus on the Corporation as a brand in itself (602Communications, 2014; Lindsay, 2014).

Today’s Pampers’ TV commercials and magazine ads, for example, all clearly connect P&G, the Corporation behind Pampers, to the product offering. The same goes for Unilever: they have started marketing themselves as companies of morals and values, which made them step out of the product-brand shadows, and step into the spotlight (602Communications, 2014; Lindsay, 2014). Especially within the context of corporate social responsibility (CSR), large multi-brand organizations, such as Unilever and P&G have started marketing themselves as socially and environmentally responsible corporations. By globally communicating and advertising their CSR initiatives, such as Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan (USLP, 2013) and P&G’s Project Sunlight Initiative (2013), these multi-brand corporations have tried to create more visibility and awareness for their environmentally and socially responsible practices.

As corporate branding tends to become more and more important in today’s business environment, it also tends to become more complex. Coordinating multiple brands, developing aggressive brand extensions and managing complex networks of sub brands

(6)

constitute only some of the challenges that today’s brand managers face. As the complexity and importance of corporate branding increase, so do the number of questions with regard to branding strategy and execution (e.g. Aaker and Joachimstaler, 2000; Aaker, 2004).

In recent years, multiple large corporations have been criticized for conveying inconsistent, ambiguous or conflicting information on product- and corporate-brand levels, however, previous research has paid limited attention to this striking occurrence. Recently, one of Unilever’s beauty product brands was publicly criticized for using unsustainable palm oil in its beauty products. The information conveyed on a product-level was highly inconsistent with what Unilever communicates on a corporate brand level as it markets its corporate brand as being socially and environmentally responsible. Corporations may need to consider their branding strategies consciously and pay specific attention to the desired interactions between different levels of the brand hierarchy, as corporate branding plays a major role in connecting the corporate brand and product brands in the mind of the consumer as well as in establishing consumers’ networks of associations, feelings and attitudes towards the firm. (e.g. Aaker and Joachimstaler, 2000; Biehal and Sheinin, 2007; Brown and Dacin, 1997).

When consumers are presented with inconsistent information concerning a product-brand and a corporate-brand that are visibly connected, this may have negative consequences for both the product brand, as well as the corporation (Brown and Dacin, 1997). Remarkably, extant literature within the branding domain has not paid specific attention to perceived inconsistencies between different levels of the brand hierarchy even though multiple authors have argued that conflicting, misleading or unclear messages significantly affect the consumers’ cognition, affect and behavior. It has been argued that perceived inconsistencies tend to cause consumer confusion and may potentially raise suspicion and decrease consumer

(7)

trust (Chen and Chang, 2013), hence, lead to dissatisfaction (Foxman et al., 1992), negative word-of-mouth (Turnbull et al., 2000) and decision postponement (Walsh et al., 2007).

Previous research within the branding domain has paid specific attention to Branding and Corporate Social Responsibility (Kay, 2006). According to Hoeffler & Keller (2003) the first step to building a strong corporate brand is connecting the brand to CSR. However, even though a substantial number of research papers agree on the importance of CSR for today’s organizations, CSR practices and marketing communications may also be related to negative consumer consequences, such as consumer confusion, perceived corporate hypocrisy (Wagner et al., 2009), distrust and dissatisfaction (Chen and Chang, 2013).

1.2 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

During the past few decades, the reach of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and related ethical consumption practices has widened significantly and has become an inherent part of mainstream society (e.g. Carrington et al., 2010). CSR can be defined as a company’s obligation to be socially responsible and exert a positive impact on society, whilst minimizing its societal harm (Pride and Ferrell, 2006). Increasing numbers of consumers have adopted ethical principles and are being motivated by ethical consumption values and social responsibility. As a result, more companies than ever before engage in CSR activities such as corporate philanthropy, cause-related marketing, socially responsible employment and minority support programs (Sen, S., and Bhattacharya, C., 2011). The question is not whether companies should engage in CSR activities, it is rather how they should do it.

A growing number of marketplace research findings have emphasized the positive effects of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) on Consumer Behavior. Multiple publications within the consumer behavioral domain have indicated a positive relationship between an organization’s

(8)

CSR actions and consumers’ attitudes toward, and evaluations of that company and its products or services (Sen, S., and Bhattacharya, C., 2011). In addition, it has been argued that socially responsible actions enhance corporate image and reputation, as well as they are said to increase levels of trust and customer loyalty (Stanaland, Lwin and Murphy, 2011). It is for those reasons in particular, that CSR is regarded as an economic imperative in today’s global marketplace.

However, even though CSR has become an inevitable component of current-day business practice (Connolly and Shaw, 2006), it has also received a significant amount of criticism. Critics argue that companies often use CSR as a kind of “corporate PR” or cover up, rather than as a real attempt to enhance societal welfare (Fan, 2005). Furthermore, inconsistent or confusing CSR communications may trigger confusion and negatively influence the consumer’s attitude towards the organization (Wagner et al., 2009).

The impact of confusing CSR communications on consumers’ general beliefs and attitudes towards the firm is said to be influenced by the individual susceptibility or proneness of consumers to confusion (e.g. Walsh, Hennig-Thurau and Mitchell, 2007; Walsh and Mitchell, 2010). Wagner et al. (2009) have paid specific attention to inconsistent CSR perceptions by investigating the influence of CSR inconsistencies on the consumer’s beliefs of corporate hypocrisy, beliefs of the firm’s social responsibility, and subsequent attitude towards the organization. Their research looks explicitly into the perceived discrepancies between an organization’s corporate socially responsible behavior and the CSR messages it conveys, however, does not pay specific attention to different levels of the brand hierarchy (i.e. Product- and Corporate Brand Levels). Especially with respect to nowadays marketplace volatility and corporate branding trend, it may be highly relevant to consider the multiple brand levels of corporations, rather than viewing the organization as a unidimensional entity.

(9)

1.3 Problem Definition

This research focuses on the impact of inconsistent product- and corporate-level CSR information on the consumer’s eventual product- and company evaluation. In other words, this research aims to explain in what ways inconsistent CSR information can shape the consumer’s attitude towards products and organizations. Furthermore, it intends to explain the role that confusion proneness plays in the formation of one’s product- and company CSR beliefs and one’s attitude towards the product and the corporation. As this study treats confusion proneness as a personality trait or individual characteristic, Inconsistent CSR Information may not be equally problematic for all consumers. Confusion proneness may help to explain the potential relationship between Inconsistent CSR Information and Consumer Evaluations. In order to investigate the impact of inconsistent CSR claims on product- and company evaluations, the following research questions will be answered:

Central Focus Question (CFQ)

How does inconsistent CSR Information at a Corporate- and Product Level influence Consumer Evaluations of the Product and the Corporation? What role does Confusion Proneness play?

Sub-Research Questions (RQs)

1a What is the difference between corporate branding and product branding?

1b In what ways do corporate- and product branding influence the consumer’s attitude towards the product and company?

2a What is CSR? How do organizations communicate CSR information to consumers? 2b Does the way in which CSR information is communicated influence the consumer’s

attitude towards the product and the company?

3 What are CSR inconsistencies? How do consumers react to them?

4a What is consumer confusion proneness (CCP)?

4b In what ways does confusion proneness influence the consumer’s company and product evaluations?

(10)

1.4 Contribution

1.4.1 Theoretical Contributions

By investigating the impact that inconsistent CSR information may have on the consumer’s attitudes towards products and organizations, the research findings may potentially contribute to the explanation of consumer perceptions, attitudes and beliefs with regard to both corporate- and product-level CSR information. Remarkably, previous research within the branding literature has not paid particular attention to the impact of inconsistent CSR claims between multiple brand levels on the consumer’s product- and corporate brand evaluation. Previous research within the CSR domain has paid particular attention to the effect of CSR inconsistencies on Consumer Evaluations of the organization, mediated by CSR Beliefs (e.g. Wagner et al., 2009), however, has not investigated the impact of Inconsistent CSR with respect to both product-brand and corporate-brand levels.

Especially since corporate brands tend to become more complex, incorporating numerous line- and category extensions with different identities and marketing communications, it may be of significant theoretical relevance to investigate the effect of these inconsistencies on the consumer’s product- and corporate level evaluations. Furthermore, CSR can be considered a hot, highly debated topic, which has not been researched within the proposed context as such. Combining these two separate strands of research will provide fresh, new insights for both research domains and is in line with current day’s corporate branding trend and the CSR

craze. Furthermore, this study extends existing literature by investigating the potential

impact of consumer confusion proneness as a personality trait, on the relationship between CSR inconsistencies and Consumer evaluations. As CCP has been underexposed in extant literature, and has only been studied in the context of word-of-mouth, trust and consumer satisfaction (Walsh and Mitchell, 2010), this study extends the concept of CCP by introducing it to the research domains of Branding and CSR.

(11)

1.4.2 Managerial Contributions

In relation to the more practical field of marketing, this research may potentially contribute to the understanding of the consumer decision-making process when inconsistent CSR information is presented. How will consumers react? And how will these inconsistencies shape

their attitudes towards the product and the corporation? Furthermore, since the significant

growth and popularization of corporate social responsibility has lead to an overload of ambiguous CSR claims within the current-day market environment, additional insights into the phenomenon of consumer confusion proneness in relation to conflicting CSR communications may be useful and provide significant practical contributions to the field of marketing. How will the consumer’s individual proneness to confusion influence the effect of CSR

Inconsistencies on Corporate- and Product-brand evaluations? Are specific consumer segments more susceptible to confusion than others?

(12)

2 Corporate Branding vs. Product Branding

Current day branding practices involve highly volatile, dynamic market environments characterized by market fragmentation, channel dynamics, global realities and rapidly changing business strategies. Today’s brand managers are faced more than ever with the increasing pressure to take the corporate brand to the next level by leveraging the brand’s assets in any possible way. Managing multiple brands, dealing with aggressive brand extensions and streamlining complex networks of product brands, have all become of significant importance in managing the corporate brand (Aaker & Joachimstaler, 2000).

During recent years, corporate branding has become of inevitable importance to major corporations and has received increasing attention by academics as well as practitioners. As of 2001, corporate branding has officially come into the business spotlight by the introduction of Business Week and Interbrand’s ranking of “Best Global Brands”. Interbrand ranks brands according to the monetary value of their intangible brand asset; it seeks to determine the contribution of the brand to business results, in both customer and financial terms. In the most recently published Interbrand Ranking (2013), Apple takes the number one spot with a brand value of $98,316 million, followed by Google with a brand value of $93,291 million (Interbrand, 2013). This Corporate Branding Trend relates explicitly to marketing the

company itself as a brand, and can be seen as a specific type of branding strategy. According to

Argenti and Druckenmiller (2004), there exist multiple factors that have given rise to this corporate branding trend, among others, the changing dynamics of product marketing, broadening sales channels, diversified communication channels and global activism.

2.1 What is Corporate Branding?

The general concept of branding has been around for centuries. Whereas it was initially used in the context of marking livestock with brand marks in order to identify them, the concept

(13)

has evolved over the years and does not merely describe a means to distinguish the goods of one producer from the goods of another producer anymore (Keller, 2013). The American Marketing Association provides a more contemporary definition: a brand can be defined as “a name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of them intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of the competition” (AMA, 2013). It is based on the fundamental principle that even though companies provide the impetus for brand creation via branding activities and marketing programs, after all, a brand is something that resides in the mind of the consumer. In other words, it is grounded in consumer perceptions. This definition provided by the AMA is generally adopted, and used within predominant branding research (e.g. Keller, 2013; Aaker and Keller, 2000; Aaker, 2004).

This research uses AMA’s general definition of a brand and adopts the notion that a brand is a perceptual entity rooted in reality, reflecting consumers’ idiosyncratic perceptions. The focus of this study will be on brands as perceptual entities. This research makes a clear distinction between corporate brands and product brands. Furthermore, it makes the assumption that consumers perceive and evaluate corporate brands and product brands differently. This perspective on branding is in line with prominent branding literature (e.g. Keller, 2013; Aaker and Keller, 2000).

Extant literature on corporate branding and product branding tends to define the concepts differently depending on the context in which they are used, despite of the fact that the terms have become buzzwords in marketing circles. According to Argenti and Druckenmiller (2004),

a corporate brand is a brand that spans an entire company and potentially has different underlying product brands. It answers the question: Who do you say you are and want to be?

(14)

However, numerous studies within the branding domain describe corporate branding as a practice of using the name of the corporation across all product offerings in order to enhance recognition and brand awareness (e.g. Muzellec and Lambkin, 2009; Aaker and Joachimstaler, 2000). This perspective adopts the notion that corporate branding is identical to family branding or umbrella branding in that it involves a strong connection between the corporate brand and all of its underlying product brands. From this point of view, the corporate brand acts as an umbrella covering all product brands.

This research, however, neglects the idea of a corporate brand as an umbrella brand, and adopts the notion that a corporate brand is simply the corporation behind all product offerings, whether strongly connected to its underlying product brands or not. This is in line with Argenti and Druckenmiller’s (2004) idea of a corporate brand. The strength and nature of the connection between the corporate brand and its product brands also referred to as the degree of fit, lies beyond the scope of this research. It is for this reason that the more general notion of corporate branding will be adopted.

Furthermore, it has been argued that the corporate brand defines the organization that stands behind the offering and essentially provides consumers with expectations of what the organization will deliver in terms of functional- and symbolic benefits; this is also referred to as the corporate brand promise (Reynolds and Gutman, 1984; Aaker, 2004; Argenti and Druckenmiller, 2004). The corporate brand potentially has a rich heritage, assets, capabilities, people, values and priorities, a local or global frame of reference, citizenship programs and a performance record as it is primarily defined by organizational associations (Aaker, 2004).

(15)

2.2 What is Product Branding?

Corporate branding differs from product branding in multiple respects. Product brands, also referred to as consumer brands, mainly target the consumer whereas the corporate brand relates to all of its stakeholders including e.g. community members, investors, partners and suppliers (Gylling and Lindberg-Repo, 2006). Furthermore, a corporate brand has a significantly broader scope than a product brand, pushing brand thinking beyond the product and its relationship with the consumer. In comparison, product brands have been limited to middle management, marketing tactics (rather than strategic marketing) and a consumer focus (rather than a holistic stakeholder focus).

Product brands may best be described as brands that are positioned below the corporate brand on the brand hierarchy and that provide their own, individual offerings that may, or may not be linked to the corporate brand name. This depends on the adopted branding strategy. Product brands are generally perceived as extensions of the corporate brand. Whenever an organization uses an established brand name to introduce a new product, it is generally referred to as a brand extension. Previous research has identified two general extension categories, namely line extensions and category extensions (Keller, 2013).

Due to the fact that the branding literature has used extension terminology in an inconsistent manner, there is a true need to differentiate between the various extensions concepts (Keller, 2013; Grime, Diamantopoulos and Smith, 2002). Keller (2013) identifies two general extension categories, namely: (1) Line Extensions and (2) Category Extensions. The former applies an existing brand name to a product in one of the organization’s existing product categories (e.g. Freelander by Land Rover). The latter applies an existing brand name to a product category in which the organization is not currently active (e.g. Swiss Army Watches). Confusingly, previous research has also distinguished between line extensions and brand

(16)

extensions, rather than category extensions (e.g. Aaker and Keller, 1990). Despite the

numerous inconsistencies in extension terminology, this research will adopt the term brand extension as the all-encompassing term to refer to both line- and category extensions (e.g. Grime et al., 2002; Keller, 2013). Furthermore, this study will use the term product brand in the broad, general sense of the word, referring to any extension from the corporate brand. This research adopts the notion that a product brand is a brand that is positioned below the corporate brand in the brand hierarchy and that provides the consumer with its individual product offering. The product brand may, or may not be explicitly or visibly linked to the corporate brand.

Because the corporate brand unambiguously represents both an organization as well as its products, it has access to both organizational- and product associations in the mind of the consumer and for that reason, is generally more complex than individual product brands (Aaker, 2004). The degree to which organizational- and product associations are linked in the mind of the consumer, however, depends on the branding strategy opted for by the corporation, hence the visibility of the connection between both brand levels.

This also involves that the corporate brand potentially has a significantly larger impact on consumer perceptions and their attitudes towards the corporation, than products brand may have (e.g. Aaker, 2004). Even though an organization can communicate and define its corporate brand and identity, its image and reputation result from the perceptions and impressions that constituencies have about the organization, as well as the associations they have with the underlying product brands. For that reason, the corporate brand’s image and reputation are not within its direct control (Argenti and Druckenmiller, 2004).

(17)

In order for the corporate brand to establish a favorable image and reputation, the entire collection of brands (i.e. brand portfolio) as well as the structure that organizes the brand portfolio, needs to be cautiously considered. This organizing structure, also referred to as

Brand Architecture, specifies brand roles as well as the nature of relationships between

brands (Aaker & Joachimstaler, 2000). Previous research provides different perspectives on the concept of Brand Architecture and categorizes corporate brands according to different criteria. However, a common component in brand architectural studies is the acknowledgement of two general types of branding strategies: integration and separation (e.g. Muzellec and Lambkin, 2009; Aaker and Joachimstaler, 2000).

An integration strategy aims to create brand architecture synergies by establishing image transfers between the product- and corporate brand in order to enable image transfer. A separation strategy, however, intends to separate the corporate brand image from the product brand image: it shapes different images for different stakeholders (e.g. Muzellec and Lambkin, 2009; Aaker and Joachimstaler, 2000).

In case it concerns the connection between the corporate brand and a product brand, the branding literature generally speaks of vertical rebranding (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2009). Vertical rebranding can be described as the transfer of associations from the corporate brand downwards to the product brand (e.g. from Nestlé to Nescafé), or conversely, the transfer of associations from the product brand upwards to the corporate level (e.g. from Danone to Danone Group). The former is generally referred to as a descending brand extension; the latter is referred to as an ascending brand extension.

In the first case, the organization intends to strengthen its brand equity by creating tight alignment and synergy between the corporate brand and the product brands. The main

(18)

consequence, however, is that the uniqueness and flexibility of individual product brands gets jeopardized. In the second case, the organization aims to leverage specific product brand attributes and extend those upwards to a corporate brand level (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2009). Even though ascending brand extensions provide multiple opportunities for the corporate brand, they may also involve some risks, including the transfer of undesirable associations to the corporate brand and potential image dilution (Keller, 2013; Muzellec and Lambkin, 2009).

In conclusion, the corporate brand can play numerous different roles within the corporation’s brand portfolio, ranging from full integration of the corporate brand and its product brands, to complete separation of the different hierarchical layers of the brand portfolio. The interplay between the corporate brand and the different elements of the brand portfolio is of significant importance as it has potential impact on the associations that consumers hold about the corporate brand and its underlying product brands (e.g. Muzellec and Lambkin, 2009; Aaker and Joachimstaler, 2000; Aaker, 2004).

This research, however, does not go into the degree of integration or separation between the corporate brand and its product brands simply because it is beyond the scope of this study. It makes the assumption that consumers are aware of the connection, when it is referred to as the corporate brand behind the product brand. Previous paragraphs purely function to illustrate the idea of association transfer and feedback-, or spillover effects. The degree of fit, integration and separation strategies will not be incorporated in this research. This research will, however, look into spillover effects between the corporate brand and product brands.

(19)

2.3 Consumer Evaluations of The Product Brand and The Corporate Brand

With regard to extant literature on brand extensions, a majority of research has focused on consumer evaluations of extensions and their attitudes towards the corporate brand (e.g. Aaker and Keller, 1990; Grime et al., 2002). Particular attention has been paid to consumer evaluations as they are considered to be essential in developing brand equity as well as they are believed to be key indicators of extension and corporate brand success (Grime et al., 2002). Even though extension- and corporate brand success can be measured in multiple ways including market share and profitability, a significant majority of branding research has focused on the consumer perspective and measures extension- and corporate brand success according to consumer evaluations of, and attitudes toward the brand (e.g. Aaker and Keller, 1990; Grime et al., 2002).

Aaker and Keller (1990), for example, have used consumer evaluations of extension quality and the likelihood of trying the extension. In addition, other attitudinal constructs such as likeability and favorability have been used to operationalize consumer evaluations of the extension and the corporate brand (e.g. Smith and Andrews, 1995; Kirmani et al., 1999). However, a common factor to all such measures is the fundamental idea that brands need to satisfy the consumers’ functional- (i.e. quality, reliability) and representational (i.e. emotional, symbolic) needs (Keller, 2013). Furthermore, the belief is held that consumers need to hold favorable attitudes and positive beliefs towards the corporate brand in order for the extension to be successful (Grime et al., 2002; Keller, 2013). These attitudes and beliefs toward the corporate brand are better known as consumers’ brand associations and help to differentiate between brands (Keller and Aaker, 1992; Keller, 2013). Brand associations represent the unique meanings that individual consumers attach to a specific brand name. The presence of such brand associations within the extension context significantly influences consumers’ extension evaluations (Grime et al, 2002; Keller and Aaker, 1992). Keller (1993)

(20)

distinguishes between three distinct types of brand associations, namely attributes (e.g. physical characteristics or product packaging), benefits (e.g. personal value that the consumer attaches to the product) and attitudes (e.g. “like” or “dislike”). In order for the extension to be successful, favorable associations need to be transferred from the corporate brand to the extension (Aaker and Keller, 1990; Grime et al., 2002).

The so-called association

transfer between the

corporate brand and the

other entity (e.g. product

brand) may concern both primary brand elements, as well as sources of secondary knowledge

(Keller, 2013). Primary brand elements include, among others, the brand name, logo, symbols, spokespeople, slogans, packaging, signage and function as trademarkable devices that serve to identify and differentiate the brand (Keller, 2013). Secondary brand associations, on the contrary, may relate to any type or entity of secondary knowledge, including for example: the country of origin (e.g. Sweden and Volvo), channels of distribution, related brands, events and celebrity endorsers (Keller, 2013). Figure 1 illustrates the transfer of associations between the corporate brand and the product brand as a two-way street in which associations of any form transfer both from the corporate brand to the product brand and from the product brand to the corporate brand. The potential transfer of associations from the brand extension to the corporate brand is more commonly referred to as the feedback, or spillover effects (Keller, 2013).

Figure 1

Association Transfer

(21)

In this study, the assumption is made that consumer evaluations of different brand levels may best be operationalized according to attitudinal constructs, such as perceived likeability, favorability and positivity of the corporate brand and the product brand. This is based on the fundamental idea that a brand is something that resides in the mind of the consumer, and that brand success is primarily determined by favorable consumer evaluations, image and reputation (e.g. Grime et al., 2002; Keller, 2013). Moreover, a clear distinction is made between consumers’ corporate brand and product brand evaluations. This is based on the assumption that consumers perceive and evaluate corporate brands and product brands differently (e.g. Keller, 2013; Aaker and Keller, 2000; Aaker, 2004). Within this research, the transfer of associations back and forth between the corporate brand and the product brand will be consistently referred to as spillover effects.

With respect to the interrelation between consumer evaluations of corporate brands and product brands, multiple authors among which Brown and Dacin (1997), demonstrate that different types of corporate associations (i.e. Corporate Ability and Corporate Social Responsibility) can have significant, though different influences on consumers’ company and product evaluations. Arguably, corporate associations that are less concerned with corporate ability and are less product-relevant, such as CSR Associations, appear to exert less influence on the consumer’s overall attitudes towards the company than associations that directly relate to corporate ability. However, both CA and CSR associations appear to affect corporate evaluations significantly. Furthermore, it has been argued that consumers’ overall corporate evaluations significantly influence product evaluations and vice versa (e.g. Brown and Dacin, 1997; Keller, 2013).

(22)

3 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

When making purchase decisions, consumers tend to pay particular attention to the social responsibility of organizations. In turn, this elevated importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has arisen due to the increased transparency of company practices and public availability of information on the CSR activities of corporations (Wagner et al., 2009). Within extant literature, CSR has primarily been associated with positive consumer consequences. In other words, a majority of marketplace research has emphasized the positive effects of CSR on consumer behavior. Arguably, there exists a positive relationship between an organization’s CSR actions and consumers’ attitudes toward, and evaluations of that company and its products or services (e.g. Brown and Dacin, 1997; Creyer and Ross, 1997; Ellen, Mohr and Webb, 2000; Sen, S., and Bhattacharya, C., 2011). Subsequently, corporate socially responsible actions are said to increase levels of trust, customer loyalty, hence corporate image and reputation (Turban and Greening, 1997; Maignan et al., 1999; Stanaland, Lwin and Murphy, 2011).

However, even though CSR is regarded as an economic imperative in today’s global marketplace, it has also received a significant amount of criticism (Connolly and Shaw, 2006). It has been argued that corporations often use CSR for the wrong purposes, for instance as “cover up” or “corporate PR”, rather than as a genuine mechanism for enhancing societal welfare (Fan, 2005). Additionally, inconsistent or confusing CSR communications may significantly influence the consumer’s attitude towards the product and the corporate brand in a negative sense, as well as it may negatively influence the consumer’s intention to purchase (Armitage, C., Christian, J., 2003). Despite the increasing attention for CSR in the marketplace, limited attention has been paid to the effects of inconsistent CSR information on consumer behavior (Wagner et al., 2009).

(23)

3.1 What is CSR?

3.1.1 CSR Associations: Corporate- vs. Product-Level CSR

Extant literature provides numerous definitions of CSR, ranging from narrow and specific ones to broader conceptualizations. The definition that will be adopted within this research, is a relatively broad conceptualization provided by Brown and Dacin (1997) in which CSR is defined as “the company’s status and activities with respect to its perceived societal obligations” (p. 68). Organizations engage in numerous types of socially responsible activities ranging from minority support programs and corporate philanthropy to cause-related marketing. The Corporate Social Ratings Monitor, a database that rates and describes over 600 organizations according to their CSR records, provides an extensive summary of diverse CSR initiatives into six broad domains (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004):

Six Broad Domains of CSR Initiatives Community Support Diversity Employee Support Environment Non-U.S. Operations Product

E.g. educational and housing initiatives, arts & health programs E.g. gender, race, sexual orientation and disability

E.g. concern for job security, safety and employee involvement E.g. environmental friendly products, pollution and animal testing E.g. overseas labor practices

E.g. product safety, antitrust disputes and innovation

Companies today increasingly acknowledge the normative as well as the business-related advantages of engaging in CSR activities. Organizations seem to support the idea that “doing good” leads to “doing better” through the positive effects of CSR activities on their stakeholder groups (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). According to the results of the Corporate Citizenship Poll of 2002, 84% of U.S. citizens would be likely to switch to a brand that is associated with a

Figure 2

Six Broad Domains of CSR Initiatives

(24)

good cause if quality and price are identical. Correspondingly, Hill & Knowlton/Harris’ Interactive Poll of 2001 reports that 79% of Americans consider corporate citizenship when making buying decisions regarding a specific company’s product (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). However, consumer reactions to CSR happen to be less evident and straightforward than previously suggested. According to Bhattacharya and Sen (2004) reactions to CSR initiatives appear to vary significantly among consumer segments; activities that have a positive impact on one consumer segment, may not work for another. Furthermore, the impact of CSR activities on the consumer’s awareness, attitudes and attributions (i.e. Internal Outcomes) happens to be stronger and more easily traceable than the impact of CSR initiatives on consumer’s buying behavior and word-of-mouth (i.e. External Outcomes).

Without any doubt, awareness of a corporation’s CSR initiatives is a prerequisite for positive consumer reactions, beliefs and evaluations: when the consumer is not aware of what the company is doing, no attitudinal or behavioral responses will take place. Apparently, the current low levels of CSR awareness amongst consumers constitute a major problem for organizations that wish to build reputations for being socially responsible (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004). Besides awareness, consumer attributions (i.e. causal reasoning: trying to understand why Company X engages in CSR activity Y) play an important part in the formation of positive reactions to an organization’s CSR initiatives (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004; Ellen, Webb and Mohr, 2006; Hildebrand, Sen and Bhattacharya, 2011). Consumers appear to distinguish between companies that engage proactively in CSR versus companies that use CSR as a defensive mechanism, just to keep up with competition (Vallaster, Lindgreen and Maon, 2012). It may be no surprise that consumers tend to evaluate proactive organizations more favorably, as defensive or reactive organizations tend to raise suspicion and skepticism. The reputation of the organization and the perceived fit between the company and the supported cause, happen to moderate consumer suspicion: organizations

(25)

with a negative reputation that support a high-fit cause (e.g. Budweiser’s drinking-and-driving campaign) tend to evoke highly skeptical consumer responses. With respect to the relationship between an organization’s CSR activities and the consumer’s eventual evaluation of the organization and its products, it is assumed that the company’s reputation, the industry and the adopted marketing strategy moderate the effect. Furthermore, it is generally assumed that company-cause fit and the consumer’s CSR support may as well influence this relationship (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004).

Due to the significant heterogeneity in consumer responses to CSR initiatives and the complexity of tracing the impact of socially responsible actions on consumers’ purchase behavior, loyalty and word-of-mouth (WOM), investigating the direct impact of CSR on consumer evaluations of both the corporation and the product may be a demanding and troublesome task. According to Brown and Dacin (1997), a company’s CSR record creates a general context for consumers’ evaluations of both the corporation and its underlying brands and products. Furthermore, the authors provide empirical evidence for the fact that CSR’s effect on consumer preference for a product is mediated by the consumer’s overall evaluation of the corporation itself. Bhattacharya and Sen (2004) take a slightly different perspective with their comprehensive CSR framework that distinguishes between internal and external

outcomes of CSR activities. Additionally, the authors indicate the multifaceted impact of CSR

as they argue that the focal organization is not the only one that experiences the benefits from engaging in CSR activities; both the social issue represented, as well as the consumer may profit as well.

Previous research on consumer responses to CSR initiatives distinguishes between Corporate-level and Product-level CSR. Accordingly, consumers happen to hold different types of CSR associations and respond differently to Corporate- and Product-level CSR

(26)

activities. The major differences between Corporate- and Product –level CSR concern the strategic orientation and organizational integration of the socially responsible initiatives that are being communicated by either the corporation or the product. Corporate-level CSR originates from a corporation’s strategy and is embedded within the organization. In order for corporations to evaluate, improve and communicate their ethical involvement and environmental performance, specific management instruments such as the European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS; 2013) and the ISO14000 (2013) environmental management standards, are employed. The results of the environmental performance audits generally do not appear on the products and are rarely communicated by the product’s marketing communications. They predominantly appear in organizations’ annual reports, on the company website and in other corporate communications, most often for promotional purposes. By communicating an organization’s ethical involvement and environmental concern internally (i.e. to employees) as well as externally (i.e. consumers; stakeholders), CSR becomes an inherent part of a corporation’s mission, vision and values, hence its reputation and public image (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004).

Conversely, whereas Corporate-level CSR is characterized by a high strategic focus and may not be explicitly visible to the consumer, Product-level CSR is most often communicated directly via its products, packaging and marketing communications by means of logo’s, symbols and slogans (e.g. the Fair-Trade or EKO Logo). The CSR claims made on a product level often enable the consumer to link his or her CSR associations of the Company to one’s CSR associations with the product. Product-level CSR claims make a Company’s CSR initiatives tangible and more visible, potentially enhancing credibility and diminishing suspicion; functioning as possible reasons-to-believe (RTB). In the case of Ben & Jerry’s, for instance, products explicitly feature Fair-Trade and Non-GMO logo’s. For years, Ben & Jerry’s has had a

(27)

corporate reputation for being socially responsible and ethically involved; the Product-level CSR claims make the Corporate CSR claims more tangible.

CSR product claims may reinforce the consumer’s corporate CSR beliefs, as well as Corporate CSR claims may have a positive impact on one’s product CSR beliefs. In other words, corporate- and product-level CSR associations are potentially intertwined. CSR association transfer may take place between the consumer’s corporate- and product-level associations in both directions, as if it were a two-way street (Brown and Dacin, 1997).

This research makes a clear distinction between product-level and corporate-level CSR information in order to investigate the differential impact on consumer evaluations of the corporation and the product brand. Furthermore, this research aims to find out whether product-level and corporate-level CSR information influence consumers’ CSR Beliefs of both the product brand and the corporation. CSR beliefs concern the consumer’s overall idea about how socially responsible the company is (e.g. in my opinion, Company X is a socially responsible company) and is said to mediate the relationship between inconsistent CSR information and consumers’ attitudes towards the firm (e.g. Wagner et al., 2009; Du, Bhattacharya and Sen, 2007). Wagner et al., (2009) define “a consumers’ CSR beliefs are his or her overall assessment of the extent to which a company is socially responsible” (p.79).

This research, however, aims to extent this definition by applying it to both corporate-level and product-level CSR. Previous literature claims that consumers’ CSR beliefs and their attitudes towards the corporation are determined by the consumers’ exposure to CSR information (e.g. Brown and Dacin, 1997; Sen, Bhattacharya and Korschun, 2006; Wagner et al., 2009). This study aims to investigate whether CSR beliefs mediate the relationship between CSR information and Consumer evaluations, however, extends previous research by

(28)

incorporating both corporate-level and product-level CSR Beliefs. This research will focus on the domain of Environmental CSR initiatives.

3.2 CSR Inconsistencies: Corporate- vs. Product-Level Information

Within today’s marketplace, firms are continuously looking for new ways to differentiate themselves in the environmental era. Besides building a corporate reputation for being socially responsible and environmentally friendly, green product marketing has become a common feature of marketing communications and advertising messages: “Eco”, “green”, “earth-friendly” and “sustainable” constitute just some of the countless green claims that are made by organizations (Chen and Chang, 2013). However, a corporate reputation for being socially responsible may not work in favor of either the company or the products it sells, when the CSR information conveyed on a product-level, is conflicting. Conversely, green marketing messages and fair-trade logos on products may not work in favor of the organization or the products when it has a corporate reputation for being socially and environmentally irresponsible (Wagner et al., 2013). Imagine if Shell, a company that does not have the best reputation for being socially responsible, introduces a product that claims to be eco, green and sustainable: wouldn’t this lead to feelings of corporate hypocrisy and unfavorable CSR beliefs?

Wagner et al. (2009) operationalize Inconsistent CSR Information according to two factors that represent inconsistencies between the CSR statement, and the corporation’s actual behavioral performance with regards to social responsibility: positive CSR statement vs.

negative CSR behavior and negative CSR statement vs. positive CSR behavior. This research,

however, aims to investigate the impact of inconsistencies between product-level and corporate-level CSR information on consumers’ evaluations of the corporation and the product: this in order to stretch current literature on CSR inconsistencies and add new

(29)

insights from the branding domain. This study defines Inconsistent CSR information, or CSR inconsistencies, as positive product-level vs. negative corporate-level CSR information or as

negative product-level vs. positive corporate-level CSR information.

Furthermore, positive and negative CSR information on both brand levels will be compared to conditions with no CSR information (i.e. neutral condition): this in order to investigate potential spillover- or feedback effects between the corporate brand- and product brand levels. Those conditions will be referred to as Non-inconsistent CSR. This research will compare conditions with Inconsistent CSR to conditions with Non-Inconsistent CSR in order to investigate the effect of CSR inconsistencies on consumer evaluations. Furthermore, a No-CSR information control condition (i.e. neutral product-level vs. neutral corporate level information) will be added.

This research contributes to extant literature on CSR inconsistencies by investigating the differential impact of inconsistent CSR information between corporate- and product brand levels, on consumer evaluations of both the product brand, and the corporation: previous research has not investigated inconsistent CSR in this particular context.

Multiple authors have argued that when consumers are confused by conflicting, misleading or unclear CSR messages, this will potentially raise suspicion and decrease their trust hence lead to unfavorable beliefs about a corporation’s social responsibility (e.g. Chen and Chang, 2013, Wagner et al., 2009). Wagner et al. (2009) claim that inconsistent CSR information may lead to feelings of Corporate Hypocrisy when the consumer perceives a distance between asserted socially responsible behavior and actual behavioral performance. They define corporate hypocrisy as “the belief that a firm claims to be something that it is not” (p. 79) and claim that perceived corporate hypocrisy negatively affects consumers’ attitudes towards the firm, both

(30)

directly, as well as indirectly via negatively affected CSR beliefs. Furthermore, Chen and Chang (2009) have argued that inconsistent CSR information may lead to green consumer confusion. The authors define green consumer confusion as: “consumer failure to develop a correct interpretation of environmental features of a product or service during the information processing procedure” (p. 494). The study provides empirical evidence for the negative impact of green consumer confusion on consumer trust. Mitchell, Walsh and Yamin (2005) link consumer confusion to behavioral consequences in a more general sense, and claim that confusion may lead to decreased trust, negative word-of-mouth, decreased loyalty and dissatisfaction.

This research assumes that inconsistent CSR information potentially leads to consumer confusion, which in turn may lead to more unfavorable CSR Beliefs and consumer evaluations. Furthermore, the assumption is made that the impact of inconsistent CSR information on consumer evaluations depends on the consumer’s susceptibility to confusion, also referred to as consumer confusion proneness (Walsh, Hennig-Thurau and Mitchell, 2007). In other words, this research assumes that the relationship between CSR inconsistencies and consumer evaluations is moderated by consumer confusion proneness. This study aims to apply concepts from confusion literature (e.g. Mitchel et al., 2005; Walsh and Mitchell, 2010; Schweizer and Kotouc, 2006) to the domain of branding and CSR. No previous studies have looked into the potential moderating effect of confusion proneness on the relationship between inconsistent CSR information and consumer evaluations.

4 Consumer Confusion Proneness

Multiple authors within the consumer behavioral literature and CSR domain have linked inconsistent company- and product information to consumer confusion (e.g. Chen and Chang, 2013; Wagner et al., 2009; Mitchell et al., 2005). Chen and Chang (2013) provide empirical

(31)

evidence for a negative relationship between Green Consumer Confusion and consumer trust. Wagner et al. (2009) claim that CSR inconsistencies lead to consumer beliefs of Corporate Hypocrisy, less favorable CSR Beliefs, hence more negative attitudes towards the firm. Mitchell et al. (2005) provide a conceptualization of consumer confusion as a state variable, incorporating behavioral, cognitive and affective components. The authors link confusion from brand similarity, information overload and misleading or ambiguous information to negative consequences, including dissatisfaction, decreased brand loyalty and negative word of mouth. The study of Mitchell et al. (2005) makes the assumption that the general construct of consumer confusion consists of Similarity Confusion, Overload Confusion and Ambiguity

Confusion.

Even though the relationship between conflicting company claims and consumer confusion has been investigated in various research settings, limited attention has been paid to personality traits and difference characteristics that concern the consumer’s personal tolerance for processing conflicting and inconsistent company- and product information. Walsh et al. (2007) have developed a multi-dimensional measurement scale that operationalizes Consumer Confusion Proneness (CCP), a construct that can be seen as “a consumer’s general tolerance for processing similarity, overload and ambiguity information, which negatively affects consumers’ information processing and decision-making abilities” (p. 699). The authors argue that confusion can be approached as a condition that consumers may be prone to, and which may affect their decision-making behavior. Similar as found in personality research, the construct is measured as a personality trait or individual difference characteristic. The concept of confusion proneness has been underexposed in extant literature as it has barely been studied in different research contexts. The concept has basically only been studied within the domain of consumer behavior. A study by Walsh and Mitchell (2010), for instance, looks into the effect of confusion proneness on word of mouth,

(32)

trust and consumer satisfaction. CCP has not been studied in relation to consumer confusion due to inconsistent CSR information. This research aims to extend to the concept of CCP as a personality trait, and investigate its moderating effect on the relationship between inconsistent CSR information and consumer product-level and corporate-level evaluations.

Walsh et al. (2007) operationalize CCP according to three confusion traits: similarity

confusion, overload confusion and ambiguity confusion. These confusion components are

similar to the ones used by Mitchell et al. (2005) to conceptualize confusion as a state variable. Each of the confusion traits is operationalized according to multiple items. The authors refer to similarity confusion proneness (SCP) as “consumers’ propensity to think that different products in a category are visually and functionally similar” (p.702). Overload confusion proneness (OCP) is defined as the difficulty that the consumer has with comparing and understanding alternatives when being confronted with more product information than he or she can process. The consumer’s tolerance for processing unclear, misleading or ambiguous product information is referred to as ambiguity confusion proneness (ACP).

With respect to conflicting CSR messages and information inconsistencies, it may be interesting to investigate how the consumer’s proneness to confusion influences one’s CSR beliefs and product- and company evaluations in particular. The concept of consumer confusion proneness has been underexposed within extant literature. By incorporating confusion proneness as a moderator variable, this research aims to extend current research findings within the CSR domain and provide potential explanantia for the role that susceptibility to confusion plays in the development of consumers’ CSR beliefs on corporate- and product levels, hence its effect on product- and company evaluations. The construct of CCP will be operationalized and measured according to Walsh et al.’s (2007) validated measurement scale.

(33)

5 Hypotheses

5.1 Impact of CSR Inconsistencies on Company- and Product Evaluations

Previous research within the branding domain has paid limited attention to the impact of inconsistent CSR information on multiple levels of the organization. Ever since the corporate branding trend emerged, numerous organizations have tried to connect the overarching corporate brand to their underlying product brands (e.g. P&G and Pampers) in order to enhance awareness for the corporate brand and potentially transfer positive associations that consumers have with the corporation downwards to its product brands (e.g. corporate reputation for being socially responsible). However, explicitly connecting the corporate brand to underlying product brands may also have unfavorable consequences. Whenever the consumer perceives there to be inconsistencies or has negative beliefs and attitudes towards the organization or products, those negative or ambivalent associations may as well be transferred between the two entities and result in unfavorable product- and company evaluations (e.g. Uggla, 2006; Aaker and Keller, 1990; Muzellec and Lambkin, 2009).

During the past decade, multiple large corporations have been criticized for conveying inconsistent, ambiguous or conflicting CSR information on different organizational levels. An example would be the conflict between the information conveyed about Unilever with its positive reputation for environmental responsibility, and the publicly available information on one of its beauty product brands making use of unsustainable palm oil. According to extant literature, a corporate reputation for being socially responsible may not have a favorable impact on consumer associations when the CSR Information on a product-level is conflicting (e.g. Sen and Bhattacharya, 2011). Conversely, green marketing messages and fair-trade logos on products may not have a favorable impact on consumer associations when the corporation behind the offerings has a reputation for being socially and environmentally irresponsible (e.g. Aaker and Keller, 1990; Uggla, 2006). Prior CSR-related research has

(34)

argued that CSR inconsistencies may potentially raise suspicion, evoke feelings of corporate hypocrisy, decrease trust, and hence lead to negative beliefs about the social responsibility of the corporation (e.g. Wagner et al., 2013; Chen and Chang, 2013).

Wagner et al. (2009) operationalize Inconsistent CSR Information according to two factors that represent inconsistencies between the CSR statement, and the corporation’s actual behavioral performance with regards to social responsibility: positive CSR statement vs.

negative CSR behavior and negative CSR statement vs. positive CSR behavior. This study defines

Inconsistent CSR information, or CSR inconsistencies, as positive product-level vs. negative

corporate-level CSR information or as negative product-level vs. positive corporate-level CSR information. Furthermore, positive and negative CSR information on both brand levels will be

compared to conditions with no CSR information (i.e. neutral condition): this in order to investigate potential spillover- or feedback effects between the corporate brand- and product brand levels (e.g. Uggla, 2006; Aaker and Keller, 1990; Muzellec and Lambkin, 2009). Those conditions will be referred to as Non-inconsistent CSR, or no CSR inconsistency. This study aims to investigate the impact of inconsistencies between product-level and corporate-level CSR information in order to stretch current literature on CSR inconsistencies and add new insights from the branding domain.

Considering this, the following hypotheses may be suggested:

H1a When corporate- and product-level CSR information is inconsistent, the Company will be evaluated less positively than when there is no inconsistency

Hib When corporate- and product-level CSR information is inconsistent, the Product will be evaluated less positively than when there is no inconsistency

(35)

5.2 The Mediating Effect of CSR Beliefs

Extant literature predominantly conceptualizes inconsistent CSR Inconsistencies as the perceived discrepancies between an organization’s actual corporate socially responsible behavior and the CSR messages it conveys. Most frequently, the concept is operationalized according to two dimensions of socially responsible behavioral performance (i.e. Positive and Negative), and two opposite dimensions of CSR statements made by the organization (i.e. Positive and Negative).

Multiple authors have argued that when consumers are confused by conflicting, misleading or unclear CSR messages, this will potentially raise suspicion and decrease their trust hence lead to unfavorable beliefs about a corporation’s social responsibility (e.g. Chen and Chang, 2013, Wagner et al., 2009). Wagner et al., (2009) define CSR Beliefs as “his or her overall assessment of the extent to which a company is socially responsible” (p.79). Multiple authors claim that CSR beliefs mediate the relationship between inconsistent CSR and the consumer’s attitude towards the firm (e.g. Wagner et al., 2009; Du, Bhattacharya and Sen, 2007; Brown and Dacin, 1997). This research, however, aims to extent this definition by applying it to both corporate-level and product-corporate-level CSR and assumes that findings on a corporate- and product-corporate-level will be similar.

With respect to this research, it is assumed that CSR beliefs mediate the relationship on both corporate- and product levels. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H2a This effect will be mediated by Corporate CSR Beliefs H2b This effect will be mediated by Product CSR Beliefs

(36)

5.3 The Moderating Effect of Consumer Confusion Proneness

Ever since research started to look into consumer behavior and consumer psychology, the concept of consumer confusion and –uncertainty has been a highly debated topic. Even though the construct has been highly debated, a majority of the literature agrees that consumer confusion generally results in unfavorable attitudinal and behavioral consequences. Multiple authors have claimed that inconsistent company and product CSR information ultimately results in consumer confusion, hence beliefs of Corporate Hypocrisy, negative feelings and attitudes towards the organization’s CSR policies as well as to the company as a whole (e.g. Chen and Chang, 2013; Wagner et al., 2009; Walsh et al., 2007).

With respect to consumer confusion caused by Inconsistent CSR information, it is to be expected that consumers who are more prone to confusion will react more negatively or unfavorably to these inconsistencies. Accordingly, this study assumes that Inconsistent CSR on a Corporate- and a Product-level won’t have similar negative impact on consumers’ attitude towards the firm or the product. CSR Inconsistencies may potentially have a stronger, negative impact on the beliefs and attitudes of consumers who are more prone to confusion.

Considering this, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H3a When corporate- and product-level CSR information is inconsistent, Consumers who are more prone to confusion will evaluate the Company less positively than when there is no inconsistency

H3b When corporate- and product-level CSR information is inconsistent, Consumers who are more prone to confusion will evaluate the Product less positively than when there is no inconsistency

(37)

6 Methodology

6.1 General Description of Study 6.1.1 Experimental Design

This research adopts a quantitative research approach and employs an experimental survey for the collection of data. The decision to opt for an experimental research design was made because of the comparative objective of this study and the multiple factors that this study aims to incorporate: a comparative research problem needs a comparative design (Bryman and Bell, 2007). By means of an experimental design, the independent variable can be manipulated in order to expose participants to different experimental conditions and test for differences between them. This matches the needs of the study’s comparative research problem. Furthermore, a randomized block design will be employed as the present study counts more than five experimental conditions (NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods, 2014). By means of online-distributed questionnaires (i.e. experimental questionnaires) the data that will be used for hypothesis testing will be obtained. This method of data collection has been opted for, as it is cost-effective method to reach large and geographically dispersed groups of people (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Furthermore, online-distributed questionnaires are convenient to analyze: raw data can directly be transferred to statistical software programs, such as SPSS.

This aim of this research is to explore the domain of Inconsistent CSR and intends to provide a better understanding of the way in which consumers evaluate products and corporations when being exposed to inconsistent CSR information by means of an experimental research design. This exploratory study employed a 3 (positive vs. negative vs. neutral product-level CSR) x 3 (positive vs. negative vs. neutral corporate-level CSR) between subjects design. The participants in this study have been randomly assigned to one of the six experimental conditions or to the control condition (See Table 1).

(38)

A total of 203 respondents participated in the study by filling out the online-distributed questionnaire (CO: N=32, C1: N=26, C2: N=32, C3: N=28, C4: N=32, C5: N=28, C6: N=25). As

the Consumer forms the population of interest, there were no restrictions as to the selection of

participants for this research based on the assumption that everyone is considered to be a

consumer. The experimental questionnaire was distributed via multiple social online

networks (e.g. Facebook; LinkedIn) as well as invitations were sent to personal contacts. Convenience- and snowball sampling methods were used to obtain the research sample. This research adopts a quantitative approach with positivist epistemology and objectivist ontology. The role of theory in relation to research is deductive as existing theories are tested for, rather than new theories are developed (Bryman and Bell, 2007).

In the introduction of the questionnaire, respondents were told that the questionnaire would be about Brand Perceptions and would consist of three parts. Respondents were told that Part 1 of the questionnaire would consist of a company- and a product brand description and several corresponding questions. Part 2 would consist of questions regarding perceptions of products, brands and stores. And Part 3 would consist of some concluding demographic questions (See Appendix 2). The questionnaire was offered in both Dutch and English in order to maximize the number of responses.

6.1.2 Description of Measures

6.1.2.1 Independent Variable: Inconsistent CSR vs. Non-Inconsistent CSR

Inconsistent CSR Information vs. Non-Inconsistent CSR was used as the Independent Variable (IV) of this study. In order to manipulate the IV, different experimental conditions were developed: participants were randomly exposed to six different experimental conditions or to the control condition. Each of the different experimental conditions combined a description of a Product Brand and a description of a Corporation. The stimuli that were selected for the

The impact of inconsistent corporate CSR information and product CSR information on consumer evaluations

Isabel Meijaard